Time to get into the Way-Back Machine to revisit and embarrass another Left-Wing villain. Right-wingers are just too silly to bother with. What's the point? We all know that every single one of them are monsters. It's villainy from the left that really scalds Kelso's Nuts, so here we go with a little reminder about...DAVID REMNICK.
Here's the URL: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030203ta_talk_remnick
Please, Davey, tell us how do you like it now? This worked out super didn't it? What was really the most convincing argument besides some douchebag's cock-and-bull "book"? Everybody knows one supports or opposes a war for visceral reasons not because some "intellectual" wrote a fucking book. It was noble Colin Powell holding up the talcum powder at the UN, wasn't it? Or maybe it had something to do (what exactly we don't know) with, be-still-my-heart, Israel?
Whatever it was, David, you guessed wrong on this one and haven't had the balls to just come out and say you guessed wrong. Oh sure, there was the coma-inducing endorsement of Kerry, but fucking John Kerry began the homestretch of the campaign "reporting for duty, sir," and was a bigger hawk than Bush. So, please do something useful if you're not willing to admit you guessed wrong, like using your platform write up a chin-scratcher on Code Pink or Gold Star Mothers. I know you publish Hertzberg and Hersh and so forth, but that does not absolve your villainy. THEY OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE BEGINNING.
For all of you "Floppers of the Nuts" out there, I'll settle this real quick for you. In addition to being an expert on morality and modern warfare, Remnick is also an expert on boxing and Russia. Just send the ever-masculine Davey a short e-mail asking some simple questions he ought to be able to answer off the top of his head: (1) Who do you like in the Vargas/Castillejo fight and why? (2) How much crude did LUKOIL produce last year and was that higher or lower than in the previous year? A US Dollar gets a Canadian Dime that Remnick doesn't have the faintest idea. Let him send out his gnomes.
This brings up the KELSO'S NUTS THEORY OF JOURNALISM. Take a subject you know really, really well -- Kelso doesn't care: baseball, auto-repair, Thai cooking, home-cannning, whatever -- and the next time you read a story about your subject, think about how many errors there were in that story and how much straight-up bullshit. Now, if a journalist isn't getting the home-canning story right, why should any reporter be getting the story right on a subject we don't know about like politics or international affairs?
Finally, Kelso understands that in a democracy or a republic one never gets everything he or she wants. Kelso opposed and continues to oppose these repulsive wars. That said, doesn't it seem like Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton would have had this whole thing wrapped up with a ribbon and a bow within five days? Kelso believes that and having bought that, he believes that the civilian leadership intended NOT to get Osama bin Laden and wants the war in Iraq to be CONTINUOUS. George Orwell wrote it up a long time ago. Kelso has a big ego, but doesn't think he can improve on Orwell.
Kelso likes Vargas. And the LUKOIL fig is a little over 600 million bbl which was an increase of roughly 4% over previous year. That took about 30 seconds with a visit to Pinnacle Sports and some Russian finance site. Kelso would rather be a lid on a garbage can at US MAGAZINE than the owner of THE NEW YORKER.
But he does love you very much.
3 comments:
Remnick on Russia in the New Yorker has been laughable for 5 years now, starting with his 2000 article with a cartoon depicting Berezovsky as Putin's "puppeteer" and buying Ol' Dirty Boris' story that he would control the new president. Within six months he had been exiled and his property stripped. You know, it's hard to take the pulse in Moscow from a coop on West End Avenue and the pool at the JCC.
In general The New Yorker is decent, although I do miss the 20,000 word aricles on mollusks you would get in the Shawn era. As Kelso's favorite storyteller Larry Miller said of opera, "You can't sleep like that at home."
Don't get Kelso wrong. He thinks The New Yorker's fine now, was fine during Tina, was fine during Shawn -- there was somebody in-between (Gottlieb?) -- it's just that he thinks Remnick's a cunt.
Kelso sitll likes Larry Miller though he's now joined National Review. And given that, Kelso REALLY respects Miller for appearing in The Aristocrats.
I was once at a summer wedding with Remnick where he commented that our mutual friend, the groom, was "shvitzing like Cornbread Maxwell." So he gets some points for wit anyway.
Post a Comment